Good article.This 'Democracy' game should now be stopped.Let ONLY Iraqi people decide what they want. Anyway,here is another articlewhich throws a light on how Saddam Hussein was helped in mid80s by people who are now decrying on Saddam's dictatorship. [ April 07, 2004: Message edited by: Capablanca Kepler ]

I see no reason to demand for Iraq a form of government it expressed no interest in to begin with. The Iraqi people are interested in any argument that would motivate the world to pressure the US. Democracy is as good as "because the Christian infidel sucks," only a lot more compelling.

Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.- Robert Bresson

I wonder how many Iraqis really know what is meant by "democracy". I'm not saying that they are stupid, or uneducated, but they have had no direct experience of democracy in a long time, and have instead faced decades of propoganda saying democracy is bad, and far longer of a church that is not exactly supportive of democracy. The other reason why "democracy" may be not fully understood by Iraqis is that its a fairly open term - they may not know which kind of democracy the coalition/interim government has in mind - a strong elected presendent, or a party lead democracy? Proportional representation or first past the post? Strong central dictated policies or local dictated policies? What is probably making them extremely restless/nervous is just not knowing what is going to be happening to them. Unfortunatly this kind of fear is something that can be used by the extremists.

without democratic process, how can the Iraqi people decide whether they want democracy or not? Let them have a referendum with the choices of a) a transition to a democratic government with equal rights for all, b) we leave now and let you fight it out yourselves, c) reinstating Saddam. I wonder what the outcome would be, but at least you'd give them a chance to decide for themselves right?

42

Joe King
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 02, 2003
Posts: 820

posted Apr 08, 2004 09:23:00

0

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting: without democratic process, how can the Iraqi people decide whether they want democracy or not? Let them have a referendum with the choices of a) a transition to a democratic government with equal rights for all, b) we leave now and let you fight it out yourselves, c) reinstating Saddam. I wonder what the outcome would be, but at least you'd give them a chance to decide for themselves right?

I'd hope that (a) would still win at the moment, although it'd probably be a close run between that and (b). What may be a good idea would be to give them a referrendum between different types of democracy, although I suppose thats going to be the role of the first government to decide what to do.

Democracy is always achieved, not forced. When I say achieved, I mean to say that there is a "powerful" leader who drives the public to the democracy and in the initial stages of democracy only that leader rules exa: George Washington, Pt. Nehru. And then transition stage comes, when people starts finding more than one alternatives who can manipulate them and then real democracy starts. You cant force democracy. If today an Iraqui is asked for one leader who can take the post of President/Prime minister. I am sure they wont be having any answer. If you are forcing democracy then give them leaders too to contest the election. But US failed to play this important part of giving leaders to Iraquis. And fact is that US cant give them leader too, cause Iraqui themselves wont accept that puppet. (or some propaganda will be needed to make him popular among Iraquis.) Democarcy.. democracy.. but who will control the democracy, does US has answer for this ?? Now when Shia and Sunni both wants US to be out of Iraq, then who will control the Iraq.. democracy ?? A democracy without a leader ?? When after invasion US should have been preparing a leader for new Iraq, it was busy in auctions. But I am sure US will do something to keep this (financial)colony of US with it.

"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh

Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jul 08, 2000
Posts: 1006

posted Apr 08, 2004 09:39:00

0

Originally posted by R K Singh: But I am sure US will do something to keep this (financial)colony of US with it.

Are you working for a company that works on outsourced projects from US? If so then will you resign? I dont think it would be fair to subject you to the horrors of being a financial slave of US.

R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5376

posted Apr 08, 2004 10:08:00

0

Originally posted by Paul McKenna: Are you working for a company that works on outsourced projects from US?

I work for money. The reason I work for money is that I dont have enough money to make money to work for me.For whom do you work ?? AW ain't we deviating from the original topic ?? If you want we can discuss difference between financial-colony and outsourcing. In short, outsourcing is mutual-financial beneficiary system and financial colony means getting benefits from controling business of other country. Controling business means country 'A' decides what country 'I' can sell at what price and to whom. Please feel free to enquire more about the difference between outsourcing and financial-colony. [ April 08, 2004: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest: The Iraqi people are interested in any argument that would motivate the world to pressure the US.

"The Iraqi people" are not monolithic. For example, I'd bet that the Kurds are pretty happy with what the U.S. is doing right now ... also the people who favor secular government over religious government, and the women who don't want a society that forces them into a subservient position. But we don't hear much about the people that are happy, because happy people don't make good news. It strikes me that the people who are fighting the hardest are (a) Baathists, and (b) People who want to establish a religious Shi'ite government a la Iran. No doubt they figure that getting rid of the U.S. needs to be done before they can fight it out among themselves for who gets to rule. To my mind, the most important thing about a new government in Iraq is that it ensure representation for minorities - most notably the Kurds and Sunnis, as well as groups like women who prefer secular government. The interim government, which is supposed to be federal, is being set up to have that, though it remains to be seen whether the permanent government does also. I certainly hope that adoption of a permanent form of government will require ratification by all of the provinces, rather than just by 51% of the population intent on forcing their preferences on the other 49%.

The kind of liberty that sees the Channel Tunnel now in French small-investor shareholder hands ? - Bonaparte had his way after all 198 years laterChannel Tunnel Today we hear that there has been a dramatic sacking of it's board by a ragged army of French rebels. You can hardly blame the the revolutionaries for being unhappy with the shares. Launched at 350p and once described by a US investment bank as heading for �20 they hit 23.5 p a year ago. In vision and engineering terms it's a triumph. In investment terms it's a disaster. Contractors ran over budget , politicians vacillated (or oscillated) bankers turned the screw and train operators delivered the serial disappointments that have become characteristic feature of it's finances. [ April 08, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

Originally posted by sunitha raghu: hmmm ...this que has nothing to do with the topic. Very inappropriate personal attack question.

As one of the official JavaRanch arbiters of what is and isn't a personal attack, I'm afraid the panel rules that Paul's post is not a personal attack. I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument discussion, already in progress.

sunitha reghu
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 937

posted Apr 08, 2004 14:24:00

0

My personal opinion: thats all

sunitha reghu
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 937

posted Apr 08, 2004 14:30:00

0

According to JR naming policy:All JavaRanch users are asked to use a real name as their display name. Obviously fictitious names may be locked out. By "real name", we mean either your own actual, personal name, or a name that at least looks like it could belong to a real person. No names of celebrities or fictional characters. In that case " one of the official JavaRanch arbiters " should have asked Paul McKenna to change the name. Am i blind here.

R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5376

posted Apr 08, 2004 14:42:00

0

Originally posted by Jason Menard: As one of the official JavaRanch arbiters of what is and isn't a personal attack, I'm afraid the panel rules that Paul's post is not a personal attack.

If asking personal questions like If so then will you resign? is not a personal then "if so then will you f#$% yourself ??" should also not be considered personal attack AW please continue the main discussion.. AW were you in the panel ? If panel consider my post to be personal attack towards anyone then I give them right to delete it without my permission.

Originally posted by sunitha raghu: According to JR naming policy:All JavaRanch users are asked to use a real name as their display name. Obviously fictitious names may be locked out. By "real name", we mean either your own actual, personal name, or a name that at least looks like it could belong to a real person. No names of celebrities or fictional characters. In that case " one of the official JavaRanch arbiters " should have asked Paul McKenna to change the name. Am i blind here.

Hmmmm, a name that at least looks like it could belong to a real person... Paul McKenna.... Sure likes like it could belong to a real person to me. Besides, someone has already tried this tactic when they got mad at Paul once before, and we didn't make him change his name then.

Hmmmm, a name that at least looks like it could belong to a real person... Paul McKenna.... Sure likes like it could belong to a real person to me. Besides, someone has already tried this tactic when they got mad at Paul once before, and we didn't make him change his name then.

Hmmmm, a name that at least looks like it could belong to a real person... Paul McKenna.... Sure likes like it could belong to a real person to me. Besides, someone has already tried this tactic when they got mad at Paul once before, and we didn't make him change his name then.

Let them have a referendum with the choices of a) a transition to a democratic government with equal rights for all, b) we leave now and let you fight it out yourselves, c) reinstating Saddam. I wonder what the outcome would be, but at least you'd give them a chance to decide for themselves right?

Assuming it's my power of chance-giving that prevails, why would I prefer that what indigenous political forces remain alive within Iraq have the power of self-determination? There's been a war, for Pete's sake. The battle of interests came down to an exercise of force. Why would you concede the enormous (and ongoing) costs of conflict and occupation under the premise that self-determination is good for everyone? Any way you slice it -- call it a moral war if you want, doesn't really matter -- Iraq gets carved up politically, economically, geographically by the tension of a variety of interests and forces weighed together because it failed to defend its position in a fight. Why do you just say, "ok, we made our point, now carry on properly! There's a good rogue state!" [ April 08, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:JK: I wonder how many Iraqis really know what is meant by "democracy". Check question 18-20 from National Survey of Iraq (pdf) (link borrowed from the neighbor thread).

what would you say is the most important component of a democracy? Top answers: "freedom" and "not sure"what would you say is definitively not a component of a democracy? Top answers: "Do not know any components of democracy" and "Not sure/no answer"

Where did these words originate from ? "Of the people, for the people, by the people "Gettysburg Address. Abraham Lincoln or some Greek philosopher ?

Political Accountability The question is: to what? Most people have this hazy idea that a Greek Guy called Democritus invented �democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people.� The sad part is, they�re all wrong. Democritus (460-370BC) was a philosopher, who was a central figure in the development of the atomic theory of the universe. He had no part in political theory. The person we need to look at is Cleisthenes (Clays-ten-ees) (570-508BC). Often accused of inventing democracy as we know it, his achievement was nevertheless fundamental to later democratic principles. Following a period of tyranny and social unrest in Athens, Cleisthenes allied himself with the common people against the nobility and imposed major reforms to Athenian politics and administrative processes. In particular, the effect of his work was to base individual political responsibility on citizenship of a place rather than on membership in a clan. However, we must recognise that in Cleisthenes� world, women and slaves had no political (and very few other) rights, and a typical city-state population would not have exceeded 10,000, that is, about 2,000 enfranchised males. After the collapse of the Greek city-states, nearly 2,000 years passed before popular rule was revisited. In 1215AD, King John of England was forced by his Barons to sign the Magna Carta. Again, this document contained no notion of demos, �people�, and kratos, �rule�. King John was a corrupt, greedy ruler who imagined himself a potentate of a wealthy empire � and behaved accordingly. Essentially, the Magna Carta was an instrument giving the Barons the right to protect themselves (and their fiefs and villeins) from the King�s avarice. But from some of its provisions we may trace legal instruments we now take for granted � the Habeas Corpus Act (1679) looked directly back to clause 39, which stated that �no free man shall be imprisoned or dispossessed except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.� The Magna Carta also formalised many notions of Baronial duty toward the Crown, thus laying the legal foundations of citizenship.

In 1776, the colonists in America severed their political ties with England, pushed too far by heavy taxation and rapacious investors. Soon after, in 1789 the French National Assembly adopted the �Declaration Des Droits De L�homme Et Du Citoyen� which was inspired by the work done in the American Declaration of Independence and by the constitutions of some American states. After the Revolution the correspondence between the two nations led to the remarkable similarity of their governing institutions. The success of the two states paved the way for representative government everywhere, but the achievement was bought with blood.

And...

A good case can be made that the colonisation of Africa by Europe was mandated by the (largely British) desire to eliminate slavery. Certainly it led to the Brussels Conference of 1889 attended by 17 nations which formally ended the African slave trade in 1892. Now, at last, �democracy� could begin.

And this document describes somewhat adequately, what democracy is, the rights of an individual common to the place where they habit. Interesting that the American Independence and French liberte developed at roughly the same time and along the same lines. [ April 09, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

Warren Dew
blacksmith
Ranch Hand

Joined: Mar 04, 2004
Posts: 1332

2

posted Apr 10, 2004 00:55:00

0

what would you say is the most important component of a democracy? Top answers: "freedom" and "not sure"what would you say is definitively not a component of a democracy? Top answers: "Do not know any components of democracy" and "Not sure/no answer"

And yet, in Q15A, "what Iraq needs at this time", "Iraqi democracy" has the largest "Strongly agree" percentage, at 72.2%. What intrigues me is Japan's positive ratings in Iraq. Japan scores highest in "which countries should play a role in the rebuilding of Iraq" at 35.9% (just ahead of the U.S. at 35.7%); for "which countries should _not_ play a role", Japan is one of the lowest at 1.2% (U.S. is at 14.1%). I guess it's a good thing they decided not to pull out. And "Religious leaders" score pretty low on the "who should take care of" scales, with the sole exception of the "who should take care of Ensuring that religious ideals are followed". That combined with some other answers (82.1% "would never" use "violence or force if it becomes necessary", 78.2% consider "attacks on coalition forces" "not acceptable") make me think that, if this survey is truly representative, all we have to do is make sure that the small minority trying to grab power violently don't manage to do it, the rest of the people might well come up with a good secular government.

Don Stadler
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 10, 2004
Posts: 451

posted Apr 10, 2004 16:31:00

0

Japan's popularity may have something to do with a feeling that Japan went through what Iraq is going through. Japan lost a war to the US and had a democracy imposed upon it, and it worked. Also Japan's leaders never got into bed with saddam and never shot their mouth off about how Iraq isn't ready for democracy. They know better. So why is Japan more popular than the US? Because they didn't lose a war to Japan. Japan isn't an occupying power with an alien religion and culture.